I have LWW (professional) running on a Windows 98 machine. It has 64M
of RAM, blah, blah blah. When I load a lot of code and data (about
25M), compilation and other execution slows down. An example is a five
line function taking 45 seconds to compile. I am assuming this has to
do with poor virtual memory management on Windows 98. (with the same
code and data on CMUCL (FreeBSD), the same machine is unaffected (of
course)). Does anyone have experience with NT (2000) handling larger
images that need virtual memory. Is the situation improved? (Before I
consider shelling out for Windows 2000).
Wade
In article <·················@cadvision.com>, Wade Humeniuk
<········@cadvision.com> wrote:
> I have LWW (professional) running on a Windows 98 machine. It has 64M
> of RAM, blah, blah blah. When I load a lot of code and data (about
> 25M), compilation and other execution slows down. An example is a five
> line function taking 45 seconds to compile. I am assuming this has to
> do with poor virtual memory management on Windows 98. (with the same
> code and data on CMUCL (FreeBSD), the same machine is unaffected (of
> course)). Does anyone have experience with NT (2000) handling larger
> images that need virtual memory. Is the situation improved?
I was using NT 4 and I didn't like the interaction of Lisp & VM.
NT is also quite memory hungry.
Why not just get more RAM?
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
Quoth Rainer Joswig:
> In article <·················@cadvision.com>, Wade Humeniuk
> <········@cadvision.com> wrote:
>
> > Is the situation improved?
>
> I was using NT 4 and I didn't like the interaction of Lisp & VM.
> NT is also quite memory hungry.
But it (NT) still does a much, much better job than W98.
Original querent might also try something like 98lite.net to rip a lot of
the perma-loaded rubbish out of W98.
Rainer Joswig wrote:
>
> I was using NT 4 and I didn't like the interaction of Lisp & VM.
> NT is also quite memory hungry.
>
> Why not just get more RAM?
>
It is a possibility, but I would need a new machine (I am maxed out).
Let's see, 128M at ~ $108 CDN. But where does it end? Anytime the
image needs virtual memory I have to get more RAM?
Wade
In article <················@cadvision.com>, Wade Humeniuk
<········@cadvision.com> wrote:
> Rainer Joswig wrote:
>
> >
> > I was using NT 4 and I didn't like the interaction of Lisp & VM.
> > NT is also quite memory hungry.
> >
> > Why not just get more RAM?
> >
>
> It is a possibility, but I would need a new machine (I am maxed out).
> Let's see, 128M at ~ $108 CDN. But where does it end? Anytime the
> image needs virtual memory I have to get more RAM?
Get "enough" RAM in the first place. I was using 256 MB RAM
on a PC with Windows NT 4 + Oracle 8 + LWW. Even that
wasn't really sufficient.
On my PowerBook I usually don't use VM at all. The laptop
has 384 MB RAM, so it's not necessary.
Rainer Joswig
--
Rainer Joswig, Hamburg, Germany
Email: ·············@corporate-world.lisp.de
Web: http://corporate-world.lisp.de/
"Rainer Joswig" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
·································@news.is-europe.net...
> In article <················@cadvision.com>, Wade Humeniuk
> <········@cadvision.com> wrote:
>
> > Rainer Joswig wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > I was using NT 4 and I didn't like the interaction of Lisp & VM.
> > > NT is also quite memory hungry.
> > >
> > > Why not just get more RAM?
> > >
> >
> > It is a possibility, but I would need a new machine (I am maxed out).
> > Let's see, 128M at ~ $108 CDN. But where does it end? Anytime the
> > image needs virtual memory I have to get more RAM?
>
> Get "enough" RAM in the first place. I was using 256 MB RAM
> on a PC with Windows NT 4 + Oracle 8 + LWW. Even that
> wasn't really sufficient.
>
> On my PowerBook I usually don't use VM at all. The laptop
> has 384 MB RAM, so it's not necessary.
I second that. Add RAM. I use LWL under FreeBSD and LWW under W2K on a 384Mb
Dell laptop (I5000) and it works very well. I usually have 30Mb to 60Mb Lisp
processes.
The memory management under NT/W2K is sometimes strange. I have seen some
trashing with only 60% of the RAM used.
As for W98...
Marc Battyani
Marc Battyani wrote:
>
> "Rainer Joswig" <······@corporate-world.lisp.de> wrote in message
> ·································@news.is-europe.net...
> > In article <················@cadvision.com>, Wade Humeniuk
> > <········@cadvision.com> wrote:
> I second that. Add RAM. I use LWL under FreeBSD and LWW under W2K on a 384Mb
> Dell laptop (I5000) and it works very well. I usually have 30Mb to 60Mb Lisp
> processes.
> The memory management under NT/W2K is sometimes strange. I have seen some
> trashing with only 60% of the RAM used.
> As for W98...
>
> Marc Battyani
On considering what is said I think I agree, it seems the only way to
get some assurance of the program's behavior. Relying on the underlying
OS to swap in an intelligent fashion is stretching it. Are Lisp heaps
particularly fragmented across pages for linked objects like conses, or
do Lisp implementations try to deal with that?
How did you get LWL to work under FreeBSD? I took a brief stab at it
but could not seem to resolve the motif library, even though I had
lesstif installed (the FreeBSD version). I think I need a linux library
version of lesstif installed in /compat/linux/lib. Is this correct? If
so, which compiled version would do, Redhat 6?
Thanks
Wade
"Wade Humeniuk" <········@cadvision.com> wrote in message
······················@cadvision.com...
> How did you get LWL to work under FreeBSD? I took a brief stab at it
> but could not seem to resolve the motif library, even though I had
> lesstif installed (the FreeBSD version). I think I need a linux library
> version of lesstif installed in /compat/linux/lib. Is this correct? If
> so, which compiled version would do, Redhat 6?
It's _very_ hard to find the correct motif librairies. And you are right,
the FreeBSD motif libs are useless. I finally found libraries that work. If
you want, I can email them to you.
Marc Battyani